E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
An artist's conception dating back to the 1990s shows a space vehicle powered by an electric propulsion drive approaching Mars. Electric propulsion is still the preferred technology for getting to the Red Planet.
Now that the International Space Station is complete, NASA is touting it as a test bed for future voyages to Mars. But when will those voyages start? Would you believe Oct. 9, 2033?
That's one of the best dates available for launching a Mars mission, according to Ben Donahue, space exploration engineer at Boeing Advanced Systems. At this week's International Space Station and Mars Conference, presented in Washington by Explore Mars, Donahue explained that the alignments of Earth and Mars make 2033 an "easy year" for interplanetary navigation. And after all, President Barack Obama did call for a mission to the environs of the Red Planet by the mid-2030s.
But in reality, the prospects for a Mars mission depend less on the celestial almanac and more on national priorities. If getting humans to Mars somehow became a national imperative, as getting humans to the moon did a half-century ago, the job could be done "before the end of the decade," said Larry Williams, vice president of strategic relations for SpaceX.
SpaceX is one of the fastest-rising stars in the aerospace industry, but even Williams acknowledges that any effort to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit would probably have to be government-led, not industry-led.
Williams compared beyond-orbit exploration to the creation of ARPANET, the federal government's forerunner to the Internet. "I would say there's probably a good return on investment" for government-led projects, in the form of economic competitiveness and prestige, he said. He wouldn't go so far as to predict that spaceflight would be the next big thing, "but I can't think of anything that's going to be more of that 'next thing,'" he said.
What's to be gained? The space race of the 1960s led to a revolution in satellite technology, opening the way to benefits ranging from global telecom and data networks to GPS navigation. The Internet's rise in the 1990s transformed the world economy again. Travel beyond Earth orbit may well lead the way to new resources, markets and frontiers in the 2020s and 2030s. And some folks, such as SpaceX founder Elon Musk, believe it's imperative for us Earthlings to spread out through the solar system in order to guard against a planet-killing catastrophe like the one that killed off the dinosaurs.
But the "why" question is a huge tale unto itself. For now, let's concentrate on the "how." Here's how the experts at the ISS-Mars Conference sized up the road between the space station and the Red Planet:
Simulating scenarios: Six volunteers are more than halfway through their simulation of a 500-day mission to Mars and back, conducted inside an isolation chamber at a Russian institute. NASA is considering a different kind of simulation next year, which would involve transmitting voice communications to and from the station with a 10-minute delay. Several experts at the conference, including Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin, suggested that a prototype Mars transit module should be attached to the station for a series of on-orbit simulations leading up to a full-length mock Mars trip. One of the potential prototypes is an inflatable module built by Bigelow Aerospace.
However things work out, NASA and the space station's other international partners should have a lot more time to draw up their tests. The current plan is to extend operations on the space station to at least 2020, and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the partners are already talking about a further extension to 2028.
Testing technologies: One of the big problems for interplanetary travelers is the heightened exposure to space radiation. To address that issue, NASA is looking at active-shielding systems that could set up a protective magnetic field around a spacecraft. Another strategy calls for packing the food, water and supplies stored up for the astronauts (as well as the waste material they produce) in such a way as to shield them during the trip to Mars.
Other potential technologies include measures to counter the health effects of spending long periods in zero-G, as well as next-generation propulsion systems. The International Space Station could serve as a test bed for all these technologies. NASA already has agreed to test an experimental VASIMR plasma engine at the space station. The consensus at the conference was that solar electric or nuclear electric propulsion systems were the way to get to Mars, perhaps boosted initially by chemical rockets.
Doing dry runs: The current vision for space exploration doesn't call for going straight from the space station to Mars. Rather, NASA plans to take a series of incremental steps along the "flexible path" through deep space. Obama has called for a trip to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025, for example. That would serve as a "dry run" for deep-space transportation systems, said Bret Drake, exploration architect at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
Even though the White House nixed the Constellation Project's back-to-the-moon goal, a limited number of lunar trips could serve as dry runs for surface operations on Mars. A trip to Mars orbit and back, without touching down on the Red Planet, would represent another step along the way. The early missions may actually send astronauts to a deep crater on one of the Red Planet's moons, Phobos, from which they can manage a remote-controlled army of robots on the Martian surface itself.
Relying on robots: If and when humans go to Mars, robots will have already blazed the trail. One such robot, the Curiosity rover, is being prepared for launch this November. NASA and its international partners are deep into negotiations over a series of robotic missions leading up to the transport of fresh soil and rock samples from Mars to Earth for study.
Eventually, robotic production facilities will be sent to Mars to manufacture the fuel and oxygen that will be required for the astronauts who follow. When the complete scenario for a human mission is worked out, Donahue says robots should be sent out first to conduct a full dress rehearsal.
The long road vs. the short road: How long would a human mission last? It depends. One type of trip, known as an "opposition-class" mission, would get the astronauts to Mars in 217 days, give them a 30-day stay, and bring them back in 403 days. In contrast to that 650-day trip, the "conjunction-class" mission would last 916 days: 210 days to get there, 496 days at Mars, and 210 days on the return trip.
The 210-day transit time is "nearly identical" to the length of a typical tour of duty on the International Space Station, said former astronaut John Grunsfeld, who is now deputy director of the Space Telescope Science Institute. So taking a trip to Mars, or coming back, may not be all that much different from what space station astronauts are experiencing now. The big difference is that when their stint in space is done, returnees from the space station get to rest or recuperate. That won't be the case when astronauts finish a 210-day trip to Mars.
NASA
This graphic compares the trajectories for an opposition-class mission to Mars (left) with a conjunction-class mission (right). Both missions are launched in 2037, but the shorter mission returns to Earth in 2039 while the longer mission doesn't end until 2040.
"I think it's still an open question in terms of what it will take ... when crews do land on Mars so they can get to work," Grunsfeld said.
That's not the only open question. I've intentionally glossed over the biggest one: Is this trip really necessary? In the past, we've talked about the prospects of finding evidence of past or present Martian life, or creating a second home for Earth's species ... but I'd love to hear what you think. Tell me why we should go to Mars, or why not, in your comments below.
More about NASA's future course:
- Scientific shortfalls limit NASA's spaceflight ambitions
- Gallery: Seven out-of-this-world destinations
- Which way for NASA? A step-by-step path
- NASA lines up jobs for Robonaut
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
Let's DOOO EEEET!!!! :-)
Mitchell
Lets get this thing going. Heck we already spend Billions of dollars just so fat chicks can just sit at home and pop out kids. How about we retask a few Billion and provide a better future for every one.
we should do it because it is hard. that is all.
Let's get these birds fired up and start finding out new science.
Exactly, and it's not just what we'll learn from Mars itself. The technology we will develop for a trip to Mars alone will be hugely beneficial to future manned spaceflight missions. It will also be a necessary step to eventually reaching other solar systems with more habitable planets than Mars. All those things they mentioned that we'll need to develop or problems we need to solve before going to Mars: we'll need the same solutions for longer trips as well. Granted, there would still be a LOT more tech needed for a trip to a new solar system (sub-light or FTL drive being one of them), but a trip to Mars is a great stepping stone.
Also, spreading the species to multiple planets is a must if we wish to survive long-term. Mars may not be the prettiest and safest spot to start a colony, but it's doable.
To quote my dad about this "Crap or get off the pot"
Your dad was a wise man.
I would like to see us mining asteroids for "rare earth" metals as soon as possible. The money that we waste on wars to keep these metals available would be better spent learning to mine the asteroids.
Which wars are you referring to? Iraq doesn't have much in the way of rare earth deposits, so far as I know, and although Afganistan has substantial deposits of copper, which the Chinese are already looking to access, rare earths aren't an issue there either.
We haven't fought any wars with Sweden, India, Kazakhstan or South Africa, so which wars are you talking about?
Here's a link to a map of all the known deposits of rare earth metals, worldwide.
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-rare-earths-projects-2011-3
Which of these is a site of recent war involving the U.S.?
Necessary? Necessary? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364725/quotes?qt=qt0475676
No, it isn't "necessary" from a "we have to do this right now" for any particular purpose, but it is essential to our survival as a species in the long run to gain the knowledge of accessing, living, and working in space and on other planets. The direct and indirect benefits can't be definitively listed as there are far too many variables that will intersect over the years and decades as this program (and others) proceeds. BUT, we can look to direct and indirect results from the past and current space initiatives, and any future program can be expected to produce similar results.
Doesn't the near flyby of a 1300 ft asteroid in November, which is classified as having a "potential" Earth strike capability, even sway your questioning if this type of space travel and research is necessary. I'm not saying the sky is falling, but wouldn't diversification of potential livable habitats be prudent knowing that a big rock could hit Earth and kill our species off?
Yes, we should go. It's in our DNA to explore. Why not travel to the next planet? For no other reason to say that we did it. Need volunteers to go today? I'm number 1. To stand on that distant vista, lay claim to be the first human to see that sight, and rejoice in mankind's ability to do just about anything it puts it's mind to, that is what it is all about. No need for other markets, resources, or second home, but just that we did it. Then standing there, looking to the stars, ask this question, What's next?
I'm go for lift off too!! Get me outta here. Also another home for humanity wouldn't hurt. The Earth isn't gonna be here forever. Between us or an asteriod this place we've known as home isn't gonna last.
This is like those stories from Popular Mechanics from the 40's and 50's, touting how everyone would have a flying car by 1980 and there would be a moon base by 1990. In 2033 articles will still be being ..uh...written(?), holographed(?) whatever, about how we are going to go to Mars in the next 20 years, and we will likely be no closer than we are today. Its not going to get any cheaper, and its not like the US is getting any richer anytime soon.Maybe the Chinese could/will do it since they will have all our cash. Necessary, no.
Survival of the species? Why do we think we are so special that we need to outlive our sell-by date? Its like scientist talking about the sun going red giant 6 billion years from now and swallowing the Earth. Ok, whatever, let people 5.9999999999 billion years down the road worry about that. Everything has its time,and if we get wiped out by a meteor, disease or destruction of the environment, so be it. Perhaps just like in "The Matrix" and BSG, thats all happened before and we are just the result of a long chain of events that will result in our destruction. Then someone or something else will take our place and it will start all over again. Thats A-OK with me.
"Survival of the species? Why do we think we are so special that we need to outlive our sell-by date?"
Because life will do anything to survive. It is natural, almost instinctual for life to continue thriving regardless of what the situation is. If this is the logic we are using, let's just get rid of healthcare, mass-production of food and anything else that humans need to "outlive our sell-by date."
Completely popmus statement in my humble opinion.
There is a simple reason why we should worry about the survival of the species. If you can prevent your death, you should do it. If your car is driving towards a cliff, do you just say, "La ti da?" Or do you apply the breaks, and stop the car before it goes over? Only a helpless species would not stop the car. If other species could do it, they would. Also, by providing a safe haven for ourselves, I'm sure we would also be providing a life raft for other species too. It should be clear that if we set up shop on Mars, that we would also bring other creatures with us. Nobody wants to live their entire lives on a diet of bacteria and yeast. We would bring plants and animals to the planet too. So going to Mars or any other planet/moon to live would be ensuring the continuation of not only ourselves, but of many other species of creatures found on this planet.
Besides, when the Cylons do attack the earth, if we haven't branched out, they only have one planet to worry about, not 13.
Shogun, I agree. If we (as humans) are ever to reach Mars it won't be of NASA's doing. My prediction is much like yours, 2033 will roll around and there still will be no plans for a mission to Mars. In 2033 there'll be no mining of asteroids (big assumption in the first place is that they have anything worth while), people will be more broke along with their governments, less resources, and less peace to go along with it.
t-t-t-t, just because you say it's a humble opinion does not make it a humble opinion.
Oh Yeeaaa! Lets spend millions of dollars (or billions) and go to a planet that is uninhabital for us humans. WoW! We are so smart. I think a thousand years from now it will be more feasible. But now in our time I think we should learn how to live on our own planet, Not DESTROYING it with so called tecnology (think space junk floating around our planet).
What is "so-called" technology? Are satellites pretend technology?
Most sci-fi fans who mention "survival of the species" in the context of space-travel have absolutely no idea as to the implausibility of EVER moving beyond our own solar system. Their science knowledge is minimum and their faith (yes, faith) in technology is over the top. If you're whipping around terms like "FTL drive" or "wormholes", you may as well include teleportation or blink drive (you think about a place, blink and you're there), because they rest in the same realm of possibility.
Mars will be an exciting jaunt, but outside of some of the gas-giants' moons, there's nowhere further that we will ever go. By the time we have the technical ability to safely and successfully send and return a person to Mars, we'll have robotic crafts that can do 50% of the research a person could do, but at 0% of the risk of life and at 5% of the cost.
Exploration is a romantic adventure, but it won't further our knowledge of the solar system at all.
Jbird, you may be correct about our species pushing beyond the solar system: it may never happen. It very probably will not happen. I hold out hope for a scientific breakthrough that will make intergalactic travel possible, but I am a realist- I know it ain't happening anytime soon. And I do think it's realistic to think mankind can spread out among our own solar system for several thousand years. Our solar system is a very big place with many environments and resources that we could take advantage of. Living anywhere is hard, even here on Earth. It's not going to be easy to colonize the solar system, but if we can ever make a colony self-sustaining we have literally hundreds of places to set up shop in our solar system. Each place has it's own laundry list of challenges, pros and cons, etc. Each colony will have to fend for itself and at the same time I hope for a future in which mankind spreads beyond this planet and works together so even a self-sustaining colony can do business with the home planet and vice versa. Survival of the species is a monumental task and perhaps the hardest thing humans will ever do. It's an ongoing goal and I think it's a noble one. If we act as good stewards of the Universe in which we find ourselves then there is no reason why we shouldn't go forth and multiply. However, if our goals are nefarious and our deeds unjust then we will surely be denied one way or another.
For the nay sayers of NASA, due to the complexities of maintaining a livable environment for the crew for a mission to Mars, the technological advances that have to be made have a tremendous impact on us. First, provide a clean atmosphere, this means converting the CO2 to O2. Earth impact: ability to reduce greenhouse gases. Second, food and water. To take everything that you need would have so much mass and this would present huge problems with existing technology. Earth impact: Improved methods for food production, especially needed in the Sudan and such. Third, medical. For the length of time for this type of mission to occur, there would have to have some advanced medical equipment to access and fix whatever could happen. Biggest threat is trauma. Earth impact: improved rural medicine and more uses for robotic surgeries. And lastly, gravity. Earth impact: None. The technical acheievement itself would be astounding.
I was tempted to reply, but found only that Mob has once again beat me to the punch. "Stewards of the Universe" is a great way to look at the role of humanity IMO. Also, anyone remember the phrase "manifest destiny"?
I think it's self-evident that we should go. When have we ever said "Aw heck, I don't really care what's around the next bend"? But -- and you knew there'd be a "but" -- what's the hurry? I suspect the difficulties of getting humans to Mars and back are way underestimated. Oh, and the federal govt doesn't have any money. And I doubt anyone else will pay up for it.
So what if it takes 200 years or 1000 to finally get there? Mars isn't going anywhere. So, again, what's the hurry? Now, if the planning shifts to a one-way trip, i.e. the first humans on Mars become the first Martians, call me. I'll be interested again. We will have simplified the expedition and made it more economical. Otherwise I've got just one word for you: robots.
Regards....
So you know for a fact that some world-wide catastrophe won't hit before then?
Of course not. In my post I mentioned that I'd likely change my opinion if the proposals go to a oneway trip, i.e. colonization. But just having 3 guys on Mars and maybe a few more in orbit buys little insurance for the human race.
Another thing to consider is how reasonable is it to spend 100s of billions of dollars to mitigate the damage from an LPE (low probability event). Answer: Not very.
Regards....
Especially true if it IS all guys.... ;-)
I think we will end up going eventually. But unfortunately due to budget and political constraints I wouldn't really expect it to happen until 2040 to 2050. .
Frankly several technologies will have to advance fairly dramatically to make it possible. The ISS can not currently go 650 days without a re-supply the life support systems aren't that good. Martian G is 1/3rd earth normal, on a 600 or 900 day mission the astronauts would undergo bone damage so extensive they'd doubtfully be able to return to earth G. Not to mention the flight is outside the protection of the earth's magnetosphere which the ISS enjoys so radiation levels would be dozens to hundreds of times higher. Sure apollo did it, but it was for days not years, and they were gambling on no solar storms.
All of this can be overcome, and much faster transit times developed to help overcome these issues. but they aren't short term solutions.
It would make much more sense to do a full mocked up Mars ship in earth orbit for two years crewed before sending one on to Mars. And Extensive not short work is going to be required on the moon to test those robotic systems mentioned.
I would venture a guesss that if the international community that is already making the space station a success, joined together and spent say 10% of their defense budgets on the project we could be there in less than ten years. It is not a matter of going to mars; or other celestial bodies, for fun it is going to be the source of many of our mineral resources in the future. At present most of the near surface mineral deposits have been exploited and there just aren't a whole lot of places left to look for new ones.
Mankind needs to explore it is what makes us unique and drives the advancement of our species. Without something to capture our imagination and focus our creative abilities, we simply sit back lob bombs at each other and devolve back into the primordial sludge from whence we came.
Well said. I yearn to have the chance to explore new lands like our ancestors did when civilization was first getting started.
It seems to me that we lob bombs at one another regardless of whether someone or another subscribes to higher aspirations. In fact it was cold war rivalry that inspired the first human visits off-world.
The cost of going to Mars and returning with a few tons of, say, erbium would be prohibitive. Industrial quantities of minerals will likely never be returned from Mars. While it's true that more efficient and cheaper modes of space transport are likely, I suspect that minerals from Mars will never compete with those from Earth. But use them on Mars? Heck yeah!
Oh we are going all right. Nice plan. I hope it's not just a place filler, but something we actively pick up and plan...BUT.....by '33 nasa may very well be playing the "me-too" role....seeing as how the russians are moving ahead in capitalistic space commerce, the chinese have their eyes on a fitting plan, moon then mars, the EU is constantly batting around ideas, one of which may stick, particularly if we continue to WAVER, as our current path indicates...but the winds of fortune do so often change. A new mineral is on mars, maybe wassonite, hopefully something much more benificial. Even the concept of possible surface accesible cache's of precious metals and rare earths may change the equation...I can see already where a modified mini shuttle could be covertly or overtly deployed to mars for a rough landing to put boots on the ground...project M boots though, teleoperated semi autonoumous androids, not much unlike the torso already on ISS...robonaut. THAT could happen this year or next if it was a ...what did you say, NATIONAL PRIORITY....the political climate will change, that may be the only statement any of us can say confidently with unfettered experience....I have the feeling that the reds are tripping up the blues and in the next campaign or the following one, we will be promised the shell with the big new science funding underneath it, then they will shuffle the shells around again to see if we can guess which shell it is under....seen the trick before, sad to say. The next two years are going to see a world of differecnce, and yet, while we watch it will most likely appear, seem, and actaully be, a period of little or backwards progress. The commercial ventures reallly have yet to make dollar one, but surely some of them will and some of them won't...and ones we never heard of before may very well come on later and dominate the industry...trying to force the issue is futile, rather WE must try to figure out how to make dollar one from space...mining seems so obvious, but gathering blueberries on mars is in no way comparable to, say picking up fist sized opals from the martian riverbeds....in the meantime, the federal sciences are going to paint them selves into a corner in terms of reason, purpose, and all else that makes them viable canidates for the dwindling public wealth of the USA. We are seeing it now, later the infighting will really turn to mudslinging.....sad thing is, the real future of the nation is profiting from the bounty of space, (yea daftrat, mars included). Without heavy industry, we are what? an agrination? tourism central? backseat drivers? earthbound?...we really need something right now to spur heavy industry, robotic manufacturing and a good moonbase project could very well do that, a mars mission might but we really put the cart in front of the horse though, after all, WE WILL build a moonbase, doing so after fielding boots on mars will go down in the history books as very odd. Won't be the first time the human race got something backwards..in fact I think we may very well have accomplished more via serendipity than outright sheer genius. Oh well, one way or another, mankind will get there. Kudos to Ben Donahue and associates for their bravery and hard work in putting together a plan. It is much more than the rest of us have done in the last 10 years. I support their concept and urge them to speed up the timetable.
Well put Mr. Smith and it would'nt do any harm to experiment with some helium 3 from the moon as a energy source here at home.
The reason to go to mars as a national priority is because it gives us a national priority. One based on a vision of making a better world and better/smarter human beings. What's our national priority now? Make more money? Save the whales? Pay less taxes? Stop abortion? The war on drugs? Or what? I'd argue that we don't really have a national priority. Instead, we wonder around with our daily lives trying to make big priorities (often based on or backed by special interests) when someone see a chance. What America needs is something that focuses us on and helps us obtain the moral and human high ground. Something to make us look forward, and in longer terms that quarterly stock reports or the price of oil next year. I believe that setting a true national priority to land me safely on mars and return them to earth would help put everything else in the world into a much better perspective. We can't be a great country without pursuing greatness or great challenges.
Gored - Although I somewhat agree that we should explore other worlds, your reasoning is way off base. I don't believe that setting foot on Mars will "put everything else into perspective". Landing on Mars isn't going to feed the poor and put a roof over the homeless. THAT would be a great "priority", and I believe if we accomplish those tasks first, we can move on to another world with confidence that not only are we ready to do so, we can do so with satisfaction that our "priorities" are in order. I guess you just need to see our present world with wide eyes, and put yourself into everyone's situation, then you would have a bigger sense of priority and accomplishment.
Actually Rich, the technology that we develop to get to Mars could very well lead to advances in food production/storage and end up feeding the poor. Either way, we're running out of food on Earth for a reason: population growth. That isn't going to stop anytime soon, barring some unforeseen plague, war, or other disaster, so what exactly would you propose we do to solve the situation?
I'm going to keep this short since I've written so many comments combating this kind of mentality that you have shown. Rich, you say "landing on Mars isn't going to feed the poor and put a roof over the homeless"... you go on to say "that would be a great priority" and that we should "accomplish those tasks first."
This is precisely where your argument fails. If you could actually see the world through wide eyes you'd understand the scope of the problem. You simply can NOT "accomplish" those tasks. There will ALWAYS be poor hungry homeless people.
Please understand that I am not some callous individual with no respect for life or those who have had a hard run of it. I volunteer my time to feed the hungry, I do my part in my community. I regularly take part in canned food drives and I participate in the "Meals on Wheels" program here. I am not a saint by any means I'm just saying that I do care about feeding the hungry and providing help to those in need.
But the reality of these issues is that hunger will persist, homeless people will always exist and no matter how much time and money and effort we put into "accomplishing" these "priorities" they will NEVER be "fixed". They will never "go away". They are enduring problems that humanity will continue to combat as long as there is breath in our lungs and energy enough to lend a hand.
Money is spent, vast swaths of money is spent on social programs to help these people in need. If you think more money should be spent on it then I would suggest donating time and money to the cause. Every little bit helps. But, we CAN help feed the hungry and shelter the homeless AND go to Mars.
Look at the amount of money that is spent on America's space program compared to that of the programs that are put in place to feed and shelter those in need. The social programs get WAY more money. They feed the hungry and they shelter the homeless and they continue to fight that fight for whatever it's worth. The space program and the social program can exist together. The space program very often does indeed facilitate the social programs through the direct and indirect benefits of the technology spinoffs. All I'm saying, and yes this actually IS the "short" version of this comment, all I'm saying is that if you're priority is to "accomplish" feeding the hungry and housing the homeless we are going to be here for a while.
Brokinarrow, can't we make advances in food production/storage without going to Mars? If increased food production or better food storage is what is sought.... well then seek it, here, now. It is not dependent on us going to Mars. Regards....
Correct Darnthatdream, but we CAN do it while pursuing Mars. This isn't an either/or situation. Pursue better food production and storage at universities across the globe, meanwhile we'll go to Mars and utilize some of that R&D.
Absolutely, positively yes! I feel this will broaden our understanding of the origins of mankind. On a second point I have been working on an out of this world "all natural" banana juice specially designed for intelligent species inhabiting our cosmos. By carrying it beyond Earth orbit, Mars and beyond will we realise its potential in space travel diet. Folks, lets get them birds fired up!
We had better go to the moon 1st.....
No need for a mission. Just official communication about what has already been found on Mars, but kept quiet. For instance, the fact that parts of Mars are not so brown and rusty, but surprisingly Earth-like. In fact there are thriving forests and lakes - indicating that there is a bit more oxygen in the atmosphere than we are being told, and temperatures not so extreme as we are being led to believe. The fact that there is life on Mars and evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations. Information that would be very beneficial to life here on Earth. The coverup is a crime against humanity.
wilieturner: Whoa, pilgrim. You weren't supposed to tell. Where are our alien friends going to park their saucers now? Next thing you know, Google Mars will start labeling the street names. Loose lips sink spaceships, you know. And whatever you do, don't tell them about the
Whoops finger in the light socket again I see.. Bust out a telescope take a few photos of these parts of Mars you know so much about... Then post them here...
Thanks..
Wilieturner - First off where do you have any proof or evidence of a cover up of this magnitude? This would require a cover up of a global scale and several governments all agreeing to this. Considering our government has a hard enough time agreeing among themselves; I think cover up this big, spanning several administrations of each government it would be impossible.
Secondly, if it was true than a mission would be priority number one since the chance to meet and learn from another civilization would be fantastic.
I think the secondary benefits on a mission such as this would be well worth it. Perhaps an exponential increase in solar cell productivity or improved propulsion systems will come out of this project.
Might wanna invest in some more tinfoil for your hat there... if there was such a cover up, don't you think people like you would be silenced?
We can achieve better solar cell productivity without going to Mars. And sooner. And cheaper. And if your notion is that the federal govt fund this, please understand that they don't have any money. The day will come when sending humans to Mars makes sense. That time is not now.
And if coolness is the objective, well, as I write Messenger is in orbit about Mercury, Cassini in orbit about Saturn, New Horizons well on its way to Pluto, Kepler is discovering literally hundreds of planets about other stars, the James Webb Space Telescope is within a few years of launch. Very exciting stuff is happening. It's ok if Mars does not happen for 200 years. It'll be ok. Regards....
The, "We need to fix the problems at home first!" crowd are hilarious. People will never agree to or on any plan that would effectively eliminate all the problems here. And even if they did, it would cost more and take longer than this sort of thing ever would. We should go to Mars because, as the moon race did in the 60's, it will inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers, and as has been stated, it is vital to our long term survival. Additionally, the type of technology that would come from a program like this would undoubtably be beneficaial to humanity as a whole in some shape or form, which might get us closer to helping the "We need to fix the problems at home first!" crowd get their wish.
Since our problems at home will never be fixed, that statement is tantamount to saying we should never goto Mars, which is silly. It does make sense however to prioritize and, at the moment the govt is in debt up to its eyeballs. The profligacy of the various regimes that have run our country for decades has brought us to a place that is not sustainable. Just eliminating graft and stupid stuff will not suffice. We have to cut.... well, just about everything, including your own personal favorite program.
Onto a side issue -- is it really the govt's job to "fix problems"? Answer: Occasionally yes, mostly no.
We must start the diaspora to insure we are everywhere when the next chunk hits earth. And national pride has nothing to do with it. We should be transitioning to a global mentality.
sounds great, were do i sign on. Love all this space talk. We here on earth need to explore other options since the resources on this planet are being depleaded each and every day. We need to find another planet were we may be able to extract resources that would help our own planet. Go USA..........................
why we should go to Mars?......it's the same reason we do everything else.....because it's there....Although Columbus was on the way to somewhere else (he did not expect a big chunk of real estate containing his namesake Columbus Ohio, to be in his way) imagine if he had questioned the voyage....very often the results derived from such a monumental human effort are something other than what we expect....after all we are only human.....
Any word on how or when they will be sending the VASIMIR to the ISS?
wikipedia says 2014... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket#Testing_on_the_space_station
Yes!!!!! Lets GO already!
YES!!! Lets GO!!!!!
seems to me it isn't a choice, but a survival imperative. We have to develop a strong ability to get off this planet in the near future. I don't see it as "long term"...but imperative to develop now. By 2033, the Earth may have at least 10 billion or more people living on it. The Earth can only hold so much before very bad things happen....we need to start the journey to colonization now.
Alan, as somebody who was at that meeting, I would say that your summary is quite adequate except for the emphasis on electric propulsion over nuclear-thermal options for the jump to Mars. In fact none of these exotic propulsion systems including the sadly flawed VASIMR is a necessary condition for travel to Mars, as Dr. Tim Glover agreed with me in later conversation.
One of the biggest threats to a robust Mars exploration however may come with too much of a dose of international cooperation, as I saw clearly illustrated by the remarkably convoluted discussions of how such affairs work on the ISS now. I am unconvinced that a Human Exploration of Mars needs to be dominated by the concept of international cooperation, even though some level is certainly worthwhile.